Let's Talk About Race

[hammegk]

IQ tests are Mensa vanity mirrors. They mean nothing. They measure nothing.

Except, of course, your ability to take IQ tests.

My my, how egalitarian of you. Would you be as willing to share if you had tested at 95?

Bookmarked. Looks like some good reading material!

Yeah, more data for you to ignore.

By the time we get to the 150+ range, IQ doesn't predict things too well; just that you can basically do most things you set your mind to if you can remain connected to some semblance of reality.

And as BillyTK mentioned, the historical tests were oriented towards predicting a person's abilities in 1st world situations.

Newer tests make every effort to be g-loaded irrespective of language or culture.

 

[Tmy]

Blacks are better athletes! Thats why the African countries always sweep through the Olympic medals!!!!

 

[BillyTK]

And as BillyTK mentioned, the historical tests were oriented towards predicting a person's abilities in 1st world situations.

Newer tests make every effort to be g-loaded irrespective of language or culture.

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to just historical tests.

 

[Skeptic]

My my, how egalitarian of you. Would you be as willing to share if you had tested at 95?

So if someone with a high IQ score agrees that they don't mean much, they are just being "egalitarian" because they can "afford" to...

...but if somone with a low IQ score agrees that they don't mean much, they are just "jealous" and "in denial" of their "inferiority".

So whatever your IQ score, you are automatically "wrong" if you claim the score doesn't mean much.

How convenient.

 

[hammegk]

[B
So whatever your IQ score, you are automatically "wrong" if you claim the score doesn't mean much.

[/B]

Yeah, damned human nature & egotism just doesn't seem to change does it?

BillyTk, have you done any research on the newer tests? If so, why do think they are still culturally/linguistically biased? Would you agree that strong efffort is being made to make them neutral?

 

[Skeptic]

Fade:How in the world can you be sure that intelligence wasn't a selected trait? The one trait where humans excel wasn't a survival trait?

Of course it is, but you are making a common mistake about evolution. Evolution is NOT the "survival of the fittest". It is the survival of the barely tolerable. As long as you are smart enough, or strong enough, to have kids, evolution doesn't care.

It is of course the case that the human race's evolution is strongly influenced by its intelligence over other species. But it is certainly not the case that evolution selected for those who had the intelligence (had they been born today) to become rocket scientists, as opposed to those who only had the intelligence to finish sixth grade.

In prehistory, both were far and away "more" intelligence than one could use, and the "extra" wasn't necessarily better for mating and surviving. There is no reason to believe rocket scientists were selected for.

 

[BillyTK]

BillyTk, have you done any research on the newer tests?

I've read up on them, particularly the Ravens Advanced
Matrices, if that's what you mean?

If so, why do think they are still culturally/linguistically biased? Would you agree that strong efffort is being made to make them neutral?

Well, apart from the contradiction of trying to find culturally-neutral tests for a culturally-specific entities. Overall it's necessary to bear in mind that there is culturally-bound semiotic bias in *any* form of graphical representation; for instance, it's been noted with the RPM there's some abiguity over what is actually being tested. And there's always the trusty old Flynn effect.

But iI was to be really derogatory, I'd suggest the newer tests are akin to testing for intelligence via Rorscharch blobs (only with right answers).

 

[BillyTK]

It is of course the case that the human race's evolution is strongly influenced by its intelligence over other species. But it is certainly not the case that evolution selected for those who had the intelligence (had they been born today) to become rocket scientists, as opposed to those who only had the intelligence to finish sixth grade.

Do you mean "manipulation of" rather than "intelligence over"? There's many instances where human "intelligence"* fails to triumph over the natural world, and even where "intelligence"* leads to adversity for the human race.

Love the "enough" idea though!

*in quotes because of the ambiguity of what intelligence actually is.

 

[Dancing David]

The problem that I see with IQ tests is they are culturally biased, if a hunter gatherer made the test , we would fail it.
Intellegence can only be measured by the standadrd that tests it, social skills are taught in American class rooms evryday, and they are graded very heavily, yet they are not on the IQ tests.
Emotional intellegence (And yes the book is pop trash, but the concept is usefull) is the ability to navigate the inner psychic world as it intersects in our interactions with others, useful skills , never on the test.
Employemnt skills: the abilty to follow tasks and act independantlybut seek guidance and resolve conflicts, not on the test.

By the way, human intellegence was probably not (IMO) the first selected trait it was walking and hands, then I believe that led to speech and more complex memory. Memory was the main reason we survived as a species, the ability to revever our elders and listen to thier sage advice.

Peace
dancing David

 

[Bjorn]

Fade,

You ask me how I can/will prove that 'asians' are more intelligent than 'caucasians'. I would like to try to dig up some of the statistics on this, but I need to know if it will help, even if I do.

When I ask you if the score on IQ tests shows more or less intelligence, you answer:

IQ tests are Mensa vanity mirrors. They mean nothing. They measure nothing.

Next alternative then: Is the score on university admission tests showing something about the applicant's intelligence?

If the answer is still no, please suggest how one can find out if one person is more intelligent than another (I take it you agree that not all individuals are equally intelligent).

 

[BillyTK]

Fade,

You ask me how I can/will prove that 'asians' are more intelligent than 'caucasians'. I would like to try to dig up some of the statistics on this, but I need to know if it will help, even if I do.

When I ask you if the score on IQ tests shows more or less intelligence, you answer:

Next alternative then: Is the score on university admission tests showing something about the applicant's intelligence?

The obvious point here is that the answer is in the question; it's only a measure of the intelligence of university applicants and as the sample being tested (university applicants) is so restricted, then it's problematic generalising the findings to support such a claim as one portion of the population being more intelligent than another.

To problematise this even further, university admission tests are generally used to indicate the presence of skills required for a particular course of study, so the test is not so much of some general cognitive capacity but of ability to be successful at university.

 

[Tmy]

If Albert Eienstien lived in a cave all his life and never learned to read and write and neverhad any schooling whould he be any less of a genius (genetically speaking)? How would he fare on an IQ test given that background.

 

[jj]

In your case I'd agree.

Other than "you", I strongly suspect you can't back up that assertion.

Thank you for your constructive, non-adhom additions to the discussion.

Now tell me, what do you think is the best overall explaination for how human beings came to exist, given the existance of primitive lifeforms?

Please note, the only mention of the word "science" is in this sentence.

 

[hammegk]

Now tell me, what do you think is the best overall explaination for how human beings came to exist, given the existance of primitive lifeforms?

Yeah, asked & answered. I take you didn't find the answer pleasing to you. Should I assume you understood it ok?

PS. try spelchek

Or, don't tell me you are a YEC, man-in-image-of-god type??? I don't think so, actually, and neither am I. Got it?

 

[Skeptic]

Love the "enough" idea though!

Not mine... it is Richard Dawkins', I believe.

 

[JAR]

I read on one page that the guy who owns Stormfront was once put in an insane asylum for putting together a 1,000 man army to use to conquer the Caribbean island nation of Dominica. Nowadays he is unemployed.

 

[Skeptic]

2) How can the hick task be culturally biased?

There are half a dozen ways. Here's one.

From your description, the faster you move your finger from the button, the "smarter" you are, and the faster yo move it to the lightbulbs after you moved it from the button, the "more agile" you are.

But who says that's true?

Surely, it could be a cultural difference between whites and blacks that whites in general have more confidence or self-esteem, for instance, which makes them more likely to have their finger leave the "home" bulb even when they are not 100% sure of the answer, confident they'll figure out the answer presently. On the other hand, black test-takers might be more likely to hesitate, trying to make sure they KNOW the right bulb to move to before leaving "home". This would also explain why whites on average take longer to touch the right bulb once they leave "home" than blacks--they're still doing a calculation in their head, while the black person already finished it with their finger on the button.

In fact, it is easy to imagine a few reasons for just such a "bias". Perhaps, for example, it is precisely because blacks are more concerned to prove they are smart to the testers, in order to dispel the myth that blacks have a lower IQ, that will make them leave their hands on the button for that extra half second of "making sure". On the other hand, whites--likely to care less about what general impression they are sending about the "intelligence" of the "white race"--could take a chance once in a while, and do the test more freely, which would make them leave the button earlier, at the "price" of a longer time to reach the right bulb on average.

Of course, this doesn't prove this IS necessarily the actual bias working here. But it certainly at least a REASONABLE way in which the test can be biased--as opposed to the claims that such a bias is "impossible". By the way, I can think, off the top of my head, of at least another unrelated ways that such a systematic bias against blacks could be introduced into this test.

 

[hammegk]

Dear Skeptic

Whew. And here silly me thought the psychometrics were not in dispute, just the reasons why racial IQ disparities exist.

Perhaps lending your ideas to the dumbshits actually doing research will lead to your doctorate & a Nobel prize. When do you intend to publish the preliminary results you must already have at your disposal?

Amazing, all those whities collaborating all these years to have Asians & some jews leading the IQ sweepstakes & blacks trailing far behind.

 

[JAR]

There were other debates on Stormfront about IQs, and how blacks score lower. I don't remember details, but it certainly didn't look good for blacks.

The high crime rate among African-Americans is true. That is due to environmental causes in their upbringing, not biological ones.

If someone says that high crime rates among areas dominated by African-Americans is a sign that they have a biological tendency to commit crimes then he/she must be reminded that during the days of the Roman Empire, white people such as the Germans and Celts were known for attacking and plundering their neighbors.

 

[hammegk]

Or, if you are big, strong, & dumb, what pays better than crime, especially if an intelligent person is running a gang of big, strong, dumb ones?

Skin color is way over-rated as any kind of indicator imo.